posted
So, do the other people who have viewed the video agree with the following?
1) It demonstrates that there are a number of pro-life activists who have not thought about what the punishment for pregnant women who have abortions should be.
2) It does not demonstrate anything about whether these pro-life activists have considered the issue of whether "women will die from having illegal abortions due to lack of training of those giving abortions." (the "coat-hangar" issue)
Edited to add a "not" where needed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Factually, your B) is correct. However, that seems to somewhat miss the whole point of the video. It seems to try to indicate (and quite well) that these particular protestors did not think about one of the most obvious consequences of what they are advocating (what are the legal consequences of making abortion illegal). Three of the protestors did not seem to have any logic to their position beyond "abortion is killing/taking a life" and two when pressed further even mentioned that God would punish the women in the afterlife so their would be no need to punish them now
So no, there is no conclusive evidence that the protestors thought about the specific consequence of how their actions are affecting women currently seeking abortion. However, I would not bet one American cent that they thought about *any* consequences of their actions beyond the child-like reasons that they directly listed in the video.
I found myself idly wondering if these people would be as eager to not only push their religious beliefs on others but to enforce them on others as well if they had previously lived in a Middle Eastern society where sharia law had been forced on them.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like it shouldn't be this way, but it turns out treating people badly does NOT inspire kindness and empathy.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, that seems to somewhat miss the whole point of the video.
The video was repeatedly misrepresented as "proving" that some pro-life activists hadn't thought about the consequence of more dangerous abortions. It does not do that. And my pointing that out is somehow "missing the whole point of the video"?
Not one other person - including the one who posted the video - called Squicky on his misrepresentations in this regard. I'm glad you've got the time to tell me I'm missing the point when I do so. I wouldn't have bothered posting in this thread if anyone had made this point before I did.
Moreover, those who answered had not thought about only one aspect of "the legal consequences of making abortion illegal." The questioner himself ignored the most obvious legal consequence of making abortion illegal - what happens to those who provide them.
Moreover, he based his question on a faulty assumption - that making something illegal requires throwing everyone involved with it in jail. It doesn't, and there are numerous examples of this. There are also numerous examples of providers and consumers of illegal services being treated differently under the law. It's clear that the answerers had not fully thought this through - something I think you'll find is quite common amongst many advocating to criminalize a particular activity. However, it's clear that the questioner either hadn't thought the whole thing through (we put people in jail when they do illegal things) or was purposely oversimplifying for effect.
Regardless, the video does NOT provide the proof that it was claimed to provide.
quote:I found myself idly wondering if these people would be as eager to not only push their religious beliefs on others but to enforce them on others as well if they had previously lived in a Middle Eastern society where sharia law had been forced on them.
You just witnessed the ones making the most overt religious references explicitly stating that they don't want to punish them with the secular justice system. The essence of the complaints against the sharia is its application of civil punishment to offenses against religion and the harshness of those punishments. Your idle wondering doesn't seem to be based on any reasonable parallel between the two situations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The video was repeatedly misrepresented as "proving" that some pro-life activists hadn't thought about the consequence of more dangerous abortions. It does not do that. And my pointing that out is somehow "missing the whole point of the video"?
Indeed. Just because Squickly missed the point of the video does not mean that you did not miss the point of the video as well
Squickly indicated that the video proved that the demonstrators did not think about one specific consequence of their proposed policy. This was incorrect.
However, you indicated that the video did not "demonstrate anything about whether these pro-life activists have considered... the coat-hanger issue." Thats factually true, but also not quite reflecting the intent of the video. The video also shows that the demonstrators did not really have any logical basis for their complaints nor any logical thought process for dealing with the questioner, period.
So as for the likelihood that that they had somehow independently come up with some logical thought process for considering the unintended consequences of the coat hanger issue? As I said, I wouldn't bet any money on it.
quote: Moreover, those who answered had not thought about only one aspect of "the legal consequences of making abortion illegal." The questioner himself ignored the most obvious legal consequence of making abortion illegal - what happens to those who provide them.
Thats not really his job. They have a policy proposal and he is free to question it without bringing up every other possible question. The onus is on them to bring that up and they were free to bring it up when questioned as an alternative to punishing the woman.
I would also add that medically, the distinction between the person performing an abortion and the person seeking an abortion could become pretty thin in the case of the abortion pill or the day after pill.
quote: Moreover, he based his question on a faulty assumption - that making something illegal requires throwing everyone involved with it in jail.
Thats not true either. Usually the first question in each series of questions is about jail. The following questions are not necessarily about jail. For example at 1:28 the question is "if its illegal, so you do not think there should be any punishment under the law?"
quote:]You just witnessed the ones making the most overt religious references explicitly stating that they don't want to punish them with the secular justice system. The essence of the complaints against the sharia is its application of civil punishment to offenses against religion and the harshness of those punishments.
That may the essence of *your* complaints. However, it is not the essence of *my* complaints
No. Personally, I'm fine (as in, I don't like it, but I do not realistically see a way around it) with Muslims defining whatever punishments they want for each other, *if* given that theoretically any Muslim can convert to a different religion or atheism to avoid that defined punishment.
No, my big issue is that in many Muslim countries, sharia law is also applied to non-Muslims and is especially brutal to Muslims that convert to other religions. In many cases, the defined punishment for apostasy is death(!).
Thats the essence of *my* complaints and that has a clear parallel.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: It seems like it shouldn't be this way, but it turns out treating people badly does NOT inspire kindness and empathy.
Yeah, on second thought you may very well be right. Once again, it appears I am as yet too optimistic about human nature Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, you indicated that the video did not "demonstrate anything about whether these pro-life activists have considered... the coat-hanger issue." Thats factually true, but also not quite reflecting the intent of the video.
The intent of the video was to pick one non-central portion of their agenda and quiz them on it.
quote:The video also shows that the demonstrators did not really have any logical basis for their complaints nor any logical thought process for dealing with the questioner, period.
It most certainly did not demonstrate that they lacked a "logical basis for their complaints."
quote:So as for the likelihood that that they had somehow independently come up with some logical thought process for considering the unintended consequences of the coat hanger issue? As I said, I wouldn't bet any money on it.
I've talked to hundreds of pro-life activists on this issue, many of whom have thought extensively about the coat-hangar issue and have not thought in depth about the punishment schema for those who have abortions. How many have you talked to?
Moreover, many - possibly most, but certainly close to half - pro-life people view the culpability of the doctors who perform abortions to be far greater than the mother.
Your conclusion relies on the unstated premise that their not having thought about the punishment that should be levied on the mothers means they unlikely to have thought about consequences of illegal abortion providers.
It reveals a disconnect from the way many or most pro-life activists think - you are assuming that the punishment aspect is as important to them as the coat-hangar aspect. It's a faulty premise.
quote:Thats not really his job. They have a policy proposal and he is free to question it without bringing up every other possible question.
That's not his job if he's an activist. He represented himself as a journalist.
quote:Thats not true either. Usually the first question in each series of questions is about jail. The following questions are not necessarily about jail. For example at 1:28 the question is "if its illegal, so you do not think there should be any punishment under the law?"
Then reword the faulty assumption to "making something illegal requires punishing everyone involved with it under the law." It's still faulty, and it's still peripheral to the larger issue.
quote:No, my big issue is that in many Muslim countries, sharia law is also applied to non-Muslims and is especially brutal to Muslims that convert to other religions. In many cases, the defined punishment for apostasy is death(!).
Thats the essence of *my* complaints and that has a clear parallel.
You just watched a bunch of people state that they don't think a criminal penalty is needed for a crime that derives from their religious beliefs. How is that parallel to law that is "applied to non-Muslims and is especially brutal to Muslims that convert to other religions."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Moreover, many - possibly most, but certainly close to half - pro-life people view the culpability of the doctors who perform abortions to be far greater than the mother.
Just out of curiousity (not an attack) but why? I would think that in all but bizarre cases of kidnapping, women are not only complicit in the abortion but are initiating it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's applying the force where it will create the most effect.
Not only are doctors likely to be complicit in far more abortions than the woman is, but they are far less invested in it. Not only would the doctors be more likely to react to legal pressure, but their reaction will have a greater effect on the abortions they participate in.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bear in mind that that's just my take on it. I have not talked with many anti-abortion folk about it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drunk driving is one specimen of an illegal activity where there is a wide range of interventions and differing responsibilities. Another is sexual harassment where the Employer is more likely to be punished than the actual perpetrator- though I think in practice this is because the Employer has more money.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The intent of the video was to pick one non-central portion of their agenda and quiz them on it.
If that was all that was intended, the journalist could simply have asked the one question and proceeded to the next person. Clearly he asked multiple questions to gain insight into their thought process (or lack thereof).
quote:It most certainly did not demonstrate that they lacked a "logical basis for their complaints."
Ok, to be pedantic, it is possible they had a logical basis for their complaints but they certainly did not articulate any when asked.
quote:I've talked to hundreds of pro-life activists on this issue, many of whom have thought extensively about the coat-hangar issue and have not thought in depth about the punishment schema for those who have abortions. How many have you talked to?
None, as I mentioned before I'm Canadian and this issue is fairly theoretical for me However, I did explicitly mention that my judgement was based on quote "these particular protestors." I'll accept your word on this, although I'm not sure if I find this more or less flattering to the movement as a whole.
quote: Moreover, many - possibly most, but certainly close to half - pro-life people view the culpability of the doctors who perform abortions to be far greater than the mother.
As I said, modern medical technology is coming close (or at least for the first few weeks *has*) to eliminating the distinction between the people that perform abortions and the people receiving them. Any punishment scheme that relies on this distinction would be relatively easy to work around unless the proposal is to also outlaw the pharmaceutical distribution of the drugs in question.
quote:Then reword the faulty assumption to "making something illegal requires punishing everyone involved with it under the law." It's still faulty, and it's still peripheral to the larger issue.
Thats still not quite true, at least for the example at 1:28 that I was referring to. The question was whether "any" punishment should be applied, mother or otherwise. The respondent replied that they believed that taking a life was enough punishment already and that God would deal with the rest in the afterlife.
This reasoning applies equally to the mother or the doctor. If anything, the assumption is that "making something illegal requires punishing *someone* under the law."
quote:You just watched a bunch of people state that they don't think a criminal penalty is needed for a crime that derives from their religious beliefs. How is that parallel to law that is "applied to non-Muslims and is especially brutal to Muslims that convert to other religions."
The parallel is that a law is created based on a religion and then applied to people outside of that religion (or even people inside that religion with a different interpretation). Just because the harshness of the punishment is different (actually the protestors also suggested praying, mandatory counselling, or "allowing society as a whole to decide") does not mean that that there is no parallel.
Edit to add: I noticed a possible miscommunication. My comments so far have focused particuarly on as I said "these particular protestors" and do not necessarily (and hopefully not) apply to any other people with the same proposal. You seem to be taking this a bit personally, so perhaps you're conflating my criticism of these people with criticism of the movement as a whole.
posted
I have some questions for those people who support are anti-abortion. Please don't take offense. I consider myself to be anti-abortion although I oppose most laws that would prohibit it.
1. If it were certain (stretch your imagination if necessary) that laws prohibiting abortions would not reduce the number of abortions but would increase injuries and deaths among women who received abortions, would you support such laws? If so, explain why?
2. What types of laws prohibiting abortions would you support?
3. Who (mother?, father?, doctor?, clinic administrator?, counselor?, grandparent?, . . .) should be legally punished for an illegal abortion and what punishments do you think are appropriate?
4. What measures would you support, other than legal prohibition, which are likely to decrease the number of abortions?
5. To what extent is your position influenced by directives from your church? Does your church have a specific stance on the legality of abortion?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: 4. What measures would you support, other than legal prohibition, which are likely to decrease the number of abortions?
That's an easy one (for me). Our family helped to start and maintain a crisis pregnancy center. They give pregnancy tests, befriend and care for women and their babies. They also provide counseling and help the women to talk through the options that they have in regards to their babies. All services are 100% free. I am not familiar with all the details of what services are provided, as I am not on the staff, but that is the general idea.
I see it as being way more effective than just arguing about the legal issues and picketing abortion clinics.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:5. To what extent is your position influenced by directives from your church? Does your church have a specific stance on the legality of abortion?
What kind of directives are you talking about? Are you only talking about directives about the legality of abortion, or about anything at all?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
6. If abortion were made illegal, would you support any initiatives to help the women affected? If so, what kind?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that case, I'd say that yes, the teachings of my church influence my position on abortion laws, just like they influence my thinking about most things.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
For example, my church teaches that abortion is morally acceptable under a very limited set of circumstances. It also teaches that laws which give advantage to one religion over another are unjust and has directed members to become involved in the communities and governments. But to the best of my knowledge, they have never given any direction specifically regarding whether or not abortions should be legal. I can see how those directives could influence members to have various positions on the legality of abortion.
I'm curious about what directives other people have received from their churches regarding abortion and how they have influenced their position on the legality of abortion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd support us looking closely at Western Europe to figure out how they keep their birthrate low while having the lowest abortion numbers in the world. How do we get people to pay attention to what they're doing before they have to make a decision like that?
As for laws, I think we're hypocrits if we outlaw abortion. We as a nation don't want to raise other people's children as our foster care system already proves. We've got no business adding over a million children a year to it. We have to attack the demand side on this one. Getting women to stop getting pregnant if they don't want the kids is the only way to fix the problem, IMO.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question was whether "any" punishment should be applied, mother or otherwise. The respondent replied that they believed that taking a life was enough punishment already and that God would deal with the rest in the afterlife.
This reasoning applies equally to the mother or the doctor. If anything, the assumption is that "making something illegal requires punishing *someone* under the law."
That's not pedantic, it's recognition of the context, which was an unexpected interview of people not used to speaking on camera.
quote:The question was whether "any" punishment should be applied, mother or otherwise. The respondent replied that they believed that taking a life was enough punishment already and that God would deal with the rest in the afterlife.
This reasoning applies equally to the mother or the doctor. If anything, the assumption is that "making something illegal requires punishing *someone* under the law."
The context was still clearly punishment for the mother.
quote:You seem to be taking this a bit personally, so perhaps you're conflating my criticism of these people with criticism of the movement as a whole.
No, I'm taking it as unjustified generalizations about these particular protesters based on a highly edited presentation by someone with an axe to grind.
quote:1. If it were certain (stretch your imagination if necessary) that laws prohibiting abortions would not reduce the number of abortions but would increase injuries and deaths among women who received abortions, would you support such laws? If so, explain why?
Yes, for reasons I cannot truly articulate in a post. In fact, the underlying philosophy is complex enough that I've considered writing a long journal article about it. The essence is that society is complicit in crimes (used in the moral sense) which it does not criminalize. It also has to do with a duty toward people not to deny them the protection from private violence that is the fundamental justification for criminal law.
quote:2. What types of laws prohibiting abortions would you support?
A ban with some sort of physical health of the mother exception. I don't have time to hash out the details in this post.
quote:3. Who (mother?, father?, doctor?, clinic administrator?, counselor?, grandparent?, . . .) should be legally punished for an illegal abortion and what punishments do you think are appropriate?
Doctor for sure, with significant jail time. I would apply standard accomplice liability analysis with respect to the clinic and associated workers. Despite what Mucus has said repeatedly on the subject, the same type of analysis would easily be applied in pill situations - the prescribing doctor and the pharmacist might have culpability, depending on their knowledge and intent.
I haven't fully formulated lay persons who assist (the person who knowingly drives the mother to the clinic or pays for it, for example) or the mother. I tend to lean toward leniency for first-time offenders.
quote:4. What measures would you support, other than legal prohibition, which are likely to decrease the number of abortions?
Programs that ease the economic difficulties - prenatal care, day care, etc.
quote:5. To what extent is your position influenced by directives from your church? Does your church have a specific stance on the legality of abortion?
My Church's teachings on respect for life, including when human life begins, influence my belief that an unborn child merits the protection of the criminal law. The specifics are based on an application of legal principles that are not directly related to my Church's teachings, except insofar as my Church teaches that the civil authority has a moral obligation to outlaw the killing of human beings.
quote:6. If abortion were made illegal, would you support any initiatives to help the women affected? If so, what kind?
I'm not sure how this is different from 4. Could you please elaborate?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I was thinking about the drunk driving thing, some more things occured to me.
A. Drunk driving is a crime that came to be more strictly prosecuted within my lifetime. It was never totally legal, but it used to be the case that drunks were "given a slap on the wrist" and sent on their merry way when they woke up in the morning.
B. The change in prosecution of drunk driving has resulted in a lot of people losing their jobs. Even if you're in a Union, being in jail is not an acceptable excuse for failing to show up an work.
C. The prosecution of drunk driving disproportionately harms lower class individuals, both those who cannot afford good defense, and the socioeconomically vulnerable problem drinkers. Some see the channelling of these people into mandatory rehabilitation as a benefit to society, though research suggests that such rehabilitation efforts are decreasingly successful.
D. Accountability of purveyors for drunken driving pushes the determined drinker into his car to either drink serially at multiple establishments or to buy liquor from a store and drink it in his car, potentially increasing the number of drunks on the road.
If vigorous prosecution of drunk driving exacerbates the problem, is it wrong to keep it illegal?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: 5. To what extent is your position influenced by directives from your church? Does your church have a specific stance on the legality of abortion?
Coming from the other perspective, I was most impressed with the stance taken by former Prime Minister's Chretien and Martin when the Church attempted to intervene in our same-sex debate.
Martin was notified of these consequences:
quote:He's putting at risk his eternal salvation. I pray for the prime minister because I think his eternal salvation is in jeopardy. He is making a morally grave error and he's not being accountable to God.
and responded as:
quote: On Wednesday, he said that while he has certain religious views, "I have responsibilities as a legislator and those responsibilities obviously must take in a wider perspective."
I remember that Chretien had a more memorable response, but I cannot find it right now. link
However, my point is that if even a tiny bit of you believes that your immortal life may be punished for eternity for a couple decisions that you make in your relatively short mortal life, then it takes guts to go up against that and do the right thing for everyone else involved.
Thats what I was impressed by in relation to the question.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: A. Drunk driving is a crime that came to be more strictly prosecuted within my lifetime ... If vigorous prosecution of drunk driving exacerbates the problem, is it wrong to keep it illegal?
I'm not sure I buy this chain of reasoning, at least in Canada I believe that the trend of impaired driving is actually significantly decreasing with improved enforcement, not increasing. link
That indicates that the frequency of incidents has dropped by about half since 1977.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Despite what Mucus has said repeatedly on the subject, the same type of analysis would easily be applied in pill situations - the prescribing doctor and the pharmacist might have culpability, depending on their knowledge and intent.
For the record, when I said that "medically, the distinction between the person performing an abortion and the person seeking an abortion could become pretty thin in the case of the abortion pill or the day after pill" I really meant "medically" and did not mean legally.
For example, emergency contraception has often been targeted by anti-abortion groups and pharmacists have sometimes refused to sell it, citing that they believed it was a type of abortion. However, interestingly the pill is really just a heavy dose of the chemicals normally found in regular birth control pills.
e.g.:
quote: Can you use several birth control pills at once for emergency contraception?
It's possible to use standard estrogen-progestin birth control pills for emergency contraception, but check with your doctor for the proper dose and timing of the pills.
Currently, this knowledge is not widely known. However, in the case of an upcoming ban in my jurisdiction I would feel almost compelled to find out the details beforehand and then make it widely available. Judging by the case of the HD-DVD encyption key incident, I really doubt I would be the only one either, especially since you can buy birth control pills without a prescription,
Thats what I meant about the line becoming relatively thin.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you can buy BCPs without a prescription in America.
My point about drunk driving is not whether the frequency would be changed, but whether the change in prosecuting it harms perpetrators. I would hope that abortion would become less common if it were illegal, despite the thread-originating story, for the simple reason that in American in 2002, over 90% of abortions were for economic reasons. If one factors economics into the frequency of abortion, it has to be considered that America is one of the richest nations on earth. It is "cheaper" to have an abortion than to have a baby.
Another reason that I am pro-life, even though I don't ever think it will become illegal in America, is I believe dissent needs to persist so that people don't assume that because it is legal, it is moral. I hope we never become a country where it is not unheard of for a woman to have had 10 abortions in her lifetime (as is reportedly the case in China or Russia). I don't have links, that's information I learned when I was taking the languages in college.
P.S. Well, quite depressing as it turns out, Russia has fewer abortions per live birth than California or Virginia. But China has more abortions than live births.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka: Looks like you're right, its often confusing for me to jump between jurisdictions.
It looks like (and someone can correct me): Birth control pills require a prescription on both sides of the border. Emergency contraception is over-the-counter here but requires a prescription in the US.
Pharmacists sometimes refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception (AND birth control pills) in the States.
Thus my workaround would only work in the case of a ban on emergency contraception for a woman that previously managed to fill a prescription for birth control pills. I stand corrected.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once lived on a military post where one of the doctors refused to prescribe birth control pills for unmarried women. There was only two doctors. I think that's going too far. I'm conflicted on the pharmacist matter, because while my pro-life stance isn't that strong, I can see where if someone really believes prescribing something is going to result in the death of someone they feel is a person, I would hope they would stick to their principles.
I think I'm remembering now a debate over whether emergency contraception should be OTC in the U.S. Considering the recent withdrawal of cough medicine for babies, I'm not so sure Americans are ready for OTC emergency contraception.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no conflict on the pharmicist and birth control pills question. Birth control is used by many women as an actual theraputic drug. I expect a pharmicist to know at least that much about the drug (without the pill, I am in agony- like on the floor writhing in pain, bawling). I also expect a pharmicist to know that it is my dr and I's decision on the best treatment, not his. The day after pill, I can understand the conflict. But for a drug with a clear medical benefit, the pharmicist doesn't get a say.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
